DodoFinance Breaking News Made For You!
It is often pointed out how Franklin was deprived of credit for his contribution to the discovery of the structure of DNA. But inadvertently, it undermines her, researchers now claim.
It was on April 25, 1953 that the two eminent scientists James Watson and Francis Crick published a revolutionary article in the journal Nature. In their study, they describe the previously enigmatic structure of DNA, for which they later won the Nobel Prize. Today, exactly seventy years later, scientists are still discussing the role of the famous scientist Rosalind Franklin. For how much did she contribute to the solution – and was she deprived of scientific recognition for her work?
popular history
In May 1952, Franklin took the most famous DNA “x-ray” of all time: Photo 51. This photo would eventually reveal that DNA is shaped like a double helix. However, popular history portrays Franklin as a brilliant scientist unable to decipher her own data. She would have stared at the photo for months, not realizing its meaning. Until Watson grabbed the photo “illegally” (without his consent or without his knowledge) and understood at a glance what he was seeing.
Archive
Nevertheless, the researchers come to the conclusion after a visit to the Franklin archives Churchill College at Cambridge came to a different conclusion. In the archives, they came across an unpublished news article written by journalist Joan Bruce. The article appears to have been written in consultation with Franklin and appeared in the prestigious magazine Time must be published. Investigators also found a forgotten letter from one of Franklin’s colleagues addressed to Francis Crick.
Equivalent member
These documents show that Franklin certainly did not fail to understand the structure of DNA. In fact, “she was an integral member of the quartet who discovered the structure of DNA”, researchers write. “With Maurice Wilkins (who worked in the same laboratory as Franklin, note), she was part of the team that solved this scientific problem. She took important steps towards the solution, provided crucial data and verified the outcome.
Not a victim
This means that we may need to revise our view on the matter somewhat. For example, Franklin would not only have already figured out her photo, but she also knew that others had access to her data. It seems that the four scientists worked together. The discovery of the structure of DNA should therefore not be seen as a race won by Watson and Crick, but as the result of a common effort. Rosalind Franklin was an equal contributor to the discovery of the structure of DNA, not a victim.
Acknowledgement
Yet that doesn’t change the fact that Franklin received too little recognition for his work. Watson and Crick took all the credit. In 1953, the gentlemen published their discovery in the magazine Nature. Franklin’s contribution was quite vague and the credits went to the men. Nor did Franklin win the Nobel Prize; she died shortly before at the age of 37 and the prize is not awarded posthumously. Then Watson twisted the reality of Franklin’s contribution in his acclaimed book, The double helix. This is often cited to point out how Franklin was stripped of honor. But it unintentionally undermines her, the researchers say.
Important contribution
According to them, it is therefore crucial that Franklin’s story be told well. Franklin contributed several important ideas to the discovery of the double helix. That she was condescended, however, is indisputable. Moreover, she was excluded from the world of casual exchanges in which Watson and Crick found themselves. “It not only dealt with the routine sexism of the time, but also with more subtle forms rooted in science – some of which are still present,” write the researchers.
Underrated
Overall, the researchers show that Franklin’s contribution may have been significantly underestimated. The fact that Franklin’s data was used in the full description of the structure of DNA was also acknowledged by Watson and Crick in a later report published in 1954. This reinforces the idea that Franklin was an equal member of a group of four scientists working on the structure. of DNA. So, although she was recognized as such by her peers, this recognition came both belatedly and quietly.
With the study, researchers have now put Rosalind Franklin in a completely different light. It is therefore necessary to look at it differently from now on, they underline. “She deserves to be remembered not as a victim of the double helix, but as an equal contributor to the revelation of her structure,” the researchers concluded.
